Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chief Justice asks legislature to set annual COLA, seeks remainder of judicial pay recommendation
Summary
Chief Justice Dustin Roe urged the Legislature to place a predictable annual cost-of-living adjustment in statute and asked for the remaining funds tied to a prior compensation recommendation, saying a steady COLA would reduce recurring political pressure and help retain judges and court staff.
Chief Justice Dustin Roe told the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Public Safety on Feb. 12 that the Oklahoma judiciary is asking the Legislature to add an annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to judges’ base pay rather than rely on the current intermittent process of biannual recommendations from the Judicial Compensation Board.
“We are an equal but separate branch of government,” Chief Justice Dustin Roe said at the presentation. “The Oklahoma Constitution mandates that the courts of this state shall be open to all people.” He added, “Mediocrity is our enemy,” as he outlined the judiciary’s budget request and a policy alternative to recurring high-percentage increases.
Why it matters: Judiciary leaders said predictable pay increases would reduce periodic political pressure over judicial salaries and help retain or recruit qualified judges and staff. Members of the subcommittee pressed presenters on fairness to other public employees and on what level of increase would be reasonable this session.
What the judiciary asked for and why: Roe described four budget items as the substantive request on the Supreme Court budget packet: remaining judiciary salary adjustments that carry over from prior recommendations; staff-attorney pay adjustments to remain competitive with other state agencies; one-time technology upgrades for the judicial center and court reporters; and dues for the National Center for State Courts. Roe said those four items represent an 8.02% increase over last year when one-time appropriations from the prior year are excluded.
Roe and Court of Criminal Appeals representatives explained that a recommendation approved by the Judicial Compensation Board in 2023 called for a larger increase (a 17% recommendation that the Legislature partially funded last year). Roe said the board’s recommendation is effectively a COLA-comparable adjustment and urged lawmakers to consider a statutory baseline with an automatic COLA to remove the recurrent political debate around periodic, large percentage increases.
“The board on judicial compensation meets every other year. They compute a number. I don’t go to their meetings,” Chief Justice Roe said. “We’re not asking for a pay raise. We’re asking for a cost of living adjustment.” He noted a possible legislative approach linking state district-judge pay to a percentage of federal Article III judges’ pay (Roe used 75% as an example) plus a modest annual COLA, with a 10-year sunset to lock in predictability.
Numbers discussed: Roe and Court of Criminal Appeals leadership gave specific comparative figures during questioning: Oklahoma district judges currently earn about $167,000; a 75%-of-federal baseline would place an Oklahoma district judge roughly at $183,000–$185,000 in the presenters’ estimate. Roe said the judiciary’s portion of the 17% recommendation equates to roughly $835,000 for the appellate courts in the request discussed at the hearing.
Questions from lawmakers: Senators asked about political optics and fairness to other Oklahomans who have not seen pay increases and whether a multi‑year automatic COLA would materially improve retention. A committee member noted a statewide revenue reduction tied to recent tax changes and asked whether the committee could fund the full recommended increase. Roe responded that the judiciary would discuss compromise levels with the committee and recommended lawmakers examine regional salary averages as a benchmark.
Other budget clarifications: Presenters removed a separate family-representation program from the Supreme Court’s appropriation packet because lawmakers have funded that program as a legislative flow-through in past sessions; Roe said the court supports continued funding but excluded it from this branch’s baseline appropriation request to avoid double-counting.
Outlook: Presenters said they will continue discussions with the subcommittee and legislative members on a statutory solution that could include a set baseline and a 10‑year, sunsetted COLA mechanism. No formal committee action or vote was taken during the hearing segment reported here.
Ending: The judiciary leaders offered to meet with members individually for follow-up and provided additional informational materials to the subcommittee.
